Put some realistic numbers for x, y, and z in the appropriate formulas, and let us see what the probability is that I will not be able to receive a random channel selection when I want to. Try it with the appropriate numbers for, say, TWC in Austin.

Poll the SDV users in Austin and see how often they are getting the "Channel Not Available" screen.

The only time I have seen that screen is when a channel is down due to a service outage. Otherwise, I have never seen that screen.

Statistical analysis shows that if you offer an x channel pool for y offerings with a node size of z you will be able to satisfy all of the users 99.9% of the time. The x can be much less than y. You can choose not to believe it if you want.
Most users would never notice the difference and it would rarely happen anyway. Once again, you can choose to disagree if you want.

This is exactly how the public telephone system works...there are many less channels for completing calls than there are subscribers - depending on telco, and where in the network you are, they concentrate up to 5:1 (one voice channel for 5 subscribers) and it works 99.9% of the time for 100% of subscribers.

Put some realistic numbers for x, y, and z in the appropriate formulas, and let us see what the probability is that I will not be able to receive a random channel selection when I want to. Try it with the appropriate numbers for, say, TWC in Austin.

Sorry, no can do. Not public data.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wbertram

Poll the SDV users in Austin and see how often they are getting the "Channel Not Available" screen.

Why are you telling me to go do something. You're welcome to if you wish.

The timeout for the response is configurable and will surely be tuned to allow people to take a piss. Again, this message will only pop up if you have done nothing with the STB for a long period of time. So if you are in the corner case of someone who has done 'nothing' with your remote for a long time, and you are still watching a show, and you get up for a beer at just the right time and you take a very long time to get back THEN your worry might be valid.

And what about my kids who are watching a children's show, and don't understand the message on the screen? "Daddy, Daddy, my show went off and won't come back! sob, sob, sob".

The timeout for the response is configurable and will surely be tuned to allow people to take a piss. Again, this message will only pop up if you have done nothing with the STB for a long period of time. So if you are in the corner case of someone who has done 'nothing' with your remote for a long time, and you are still watching a show, and you get up for a beer at just the right time and you take a very long time to get back THEN your worry might be valid.

What would happen though, if you have a dvr stb forsay, and are not home while it's recording. If it were to get polled while recording event could the station get pulled? Just a interesting thought.

And what about my kids who are watching a children's show, and don't understand the message on the screen? "Daddy, Daddy, my show went off and won't come back! sob, sob, sob".

You are moving into the realm of irrational argumenting now. For those looking to argue against it, nothing will convince you. I already said 1) it should not even be statistically needed 2) it will only go to STBs with long periods of inactivity. If you kids fall into both then tough luck. **** happens.

Statistical analysis shows that if you offer an x channel pool for y offerings with a node size of z you will be able to satisfy all of the users 99.9% of the time. The x can be much less than y. You can choose not to believe it if you want.
Most users would never notice the difference and it would rarely happen anyway. Once again, you can choose to disagree if you want.

The only way you can guarantee 99.9% availability is if the channel pool, x, is equal to, or slightly less than, the lesser of the number of offerings, y, or the node size, z. Since y is most likely less than z, this means that x must be equal to, or slightly less than y. In other words, the size of the channel pool must be very close to the number of offerings. So what has the expense of the SDV equipment bought you?

The only way you can guarantee 99.9% availability is if the channel pool, x, is equal to, or slightly less than, the lesser of the number of offerings, y, or the node size, z. Since y is most likely less than z, this means that x must be equal to, or slightly less than y. In other words, the size of the channel pool must be very close to the number of offerings. So what has the expense of the SDV equipment bought you?

Sorry, can't argue with you any more on this. You are right. All of the cable operators are stupid and pissing millions away on this with no payback.

Once again, the engineers are working many use-cases. STBs with recordings are assumed to be using the channel and will not be polled.

The smarter thing to do would make the protocol that requests the channel include the expected time on that channel. Alternatively, an STB making a recording could just renew the channel request every 15 minutes.

The smarter thing to do would make the protocol that requests the channel include the expected time on that channel. Alternatively, an STB making a recording could just renew the channel request every 15 minutes.

I should caveat my responses... Although I am generally aware of the SDV design, exact details may be slightly different. The exact implementation of the protocols and sequence diagrams for switching and the DVR recording are a good example of specifics which I may be wrong on.

The only way you can guarantee 99.9% availability is if the channel pool, x, is equal to, or slightly less than, the lesser of the number of offerings, y, or the node size, z. Since y is most likely less than z, this means that x must be equal to, or slightly less than y. In other words, the size of the channel pool must be very close to the number of offerings. So what has the expense of the SDV equipment bought you?

Well to me at least. This all makes since when there comes a point where bandwidth could start becoming an issue. Sadly, I wish it wasn't the direction things were going or that tivo supports it now.

What is the latest with turning off analog cable. In systems where they turn it off is this an alternative to sdv or will they still use sdv after turning off analog cable.

From reading through the avsforum today it seams that Comcast have already pulled the plug for analog cable in Chicago leaving only local access channels as analog. They are making this move becuase the majority of homes in the city already have digital cable, for those who don't, comcast is providing a free STB as a solution. It seams that they are now turnign off analog channels in the suburbs over the next few months.

Is this a likely trend that we will see in more cities in the near future to a lot for more space for digital content? What is the latest information as to what the cable industry is doing in terms of analog cable over the next few years.

Why don't they go to a packet-switched type of protocol (ala TCP/IP)? This SDV thing seems like a big hack to me.

Incremental changes to the headend and STB base over time as opposed to a massive switch-out of the entire infrastructure. Cable company investors would not tolerate the kind of cost impacts necessary to switch the underlying tech.

And people started screaming that their S2DTs were now rendered merely single-tuners and they needed STBs for every TV. You are always going to piss someone off. It is just a matter of who.

Well, it's true, there is always someone thats going to be pissed off. Such is the life of adapting new technology to replace a older one. I just wish this one 1 way 2 way ocap thing could have been settled by now, not changing every couple of months leaving third party devices out of the circle.

Incremental changes to the headend and STB base over time as opposed to a massive switch-out of the entire infrastructure. Cable company investors would not tolerate the kind of cost impacts necessary to switch the underlying tech.

I see. This does, however, seem like an interim solution. They're banking on each SDV "node" only needing a subset of the total available channels. At some point in the future they'll need to look at a better technology.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Sorry, can't argue with you any more on this. You are right. All of the cable operators are stupid and pissing millions away on this with no payback.

Are you saying no business every makes costly mistakes?

I guess I just don't see the benefit of this in the long run, vs going all digital and building out capacity. I see the near-term benefits. I guess the costs are small enough that they feel they are OK.

Any channel with inactivity for a period of time is able to be polled to see if the watcher is still there. "Please hit the enter button if you still want this channel". If no response is received the channel will be reclaimed and the STB will be sent to a safe channel.

Is my dongle going to send back the proper response if Tivo is recording a SDV channel and I'm not home?

__________________Comcast, Cox, TW, Charter and BHN are cabal companies.
(That is not a spelling error. Check the definition.)

Well, this is how your cell phone service has worked. Voice channels are only dedicated to your phone one a call is established. Once the call is completed, the channel is released back into the pool of available channels. The channels that are used to handshake between your phone and the tower are much smaller in nature, so the system can support many more of those channels than voice channels. The same technology is used for landline phones too.

Yes, if everybody who owned a phone tried to call at the exact same time, the system gets congested. But unless a disaster occurs (9/11, hurricanes, etc.), no more than x% of people are using the service at any one time. In the past two years, the cable company has been busy watching your viewing habits and conducting trials in some markets to determine how many channels they can switch to SDV. If they implement it correctly, you won't notice a thing. Unless you're using an S3.

The benefit is that it is a quick way to boost capacity without rewiring everyone's house to bring fiber directly to the house. They need a solution ASAP. I have FIOS -- my uplink speed is probably faster than your downlink speed. And it's the same price as your service. DirecTV will release a bunch of HD channels any day now. Cable is just trying to keep up.

Yes, if everybody who owned a phone tried to call at the exact same time, the system gets congested. ...SNIP.

Of course, that is exactly how the SDV system works! Everybody who owns a TV sits down at 8:00PM and tries to tune to their favorite channel. And, the system gets congested, just like the phone system gets congested on Mother's Day, or after a catastrophe like 9/11.

SDV only "increases capacity" when relatively few people are viewing TV.

Of course, that is exactly how the SDV system works! Everybody who owns a TV sits down at 8:00PM and tries to tune to their favorite channel. And, the system gets congested, just like the phone system gets congested on Mother's Day, or after a catastrophe like 9/11.

SDV only "increases capacity" when relatively few people are viewing TV.

In practice, not everyone sits down to watch every channel on the map at 8:00. Most people tune to x channels at any given time where x is much smaller than y offered. SDV will and is working just fine in the areas where it is deployed without running out of slots. I don't know what else to tell you to make you feel any different. SDV actually works better during peak times because there is more concentration on fewer channels.

When was the last time you could not reach you mother on Mothers Day on the first attempt?

That really points out the no-win situation that a la carte is, especially if it is to be driven by consumers wanting it. They'll go from complaining about "having to pay for channels they don't watch" to complaining about how all the channels now cost $3-$4 each.

Maybe so, but if your pricing is correct, my bill would go down by 2/3. I don't watch any HBO types, no sports (I am told that ESPN type channels would cost $70+) I long for the "a la carte" system